Actually, I've found it interesting how Hawking has gone from leaving a place, no matter how tenuous, for a Creator in "A Brief History of Time", to his near-certainty that no supernatural being is necessary at all to explain our existence. His shift is subtle, but it is definitely there. "A Brief History of Time" was the book that kick-started my atheism back in high school.

jfiling wrote:Actually, I've found it interesting how Hawking has gone from leaving a place, no matter how tenuous, for a Creator in "A Brief History of Time", to his near-certainty that no supernatural being is necessary at all to explain our existence. His shift is subtle, but it is definitely there. "A Brief History of Time" was the book that kick-started my atheism back in high school.

The man is entitled to his opinions like everyone else. Unfortunately simple minded folks will assume his reputation as a "genius" plays a relevant role in Hawking speaking on such matters.

Not suggesting you do J, but I've already seen it put in motion by others.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote: Unfortunately simple minded folks will assume his reputation as a "genius" plays a relevant role in Hawking speaking on such matters.

Pretty sure the "genius" doesn't need quotes, and it would seem that his reputation is very relevant in explaining the origin of creation without a supreme being.

Yep, which is pretty much his point. People are free to believe any of the hundreds of creation myths that have existed throughout the history of the world, although the myth believed by a rather unimportant group of Middle Eastern slaves seems to be the one most prevalent in western civilization. I've never really understood it, except when I look at the politics of the Roman Empire around 100-200 CE, which used the Jesus myth in an attempt to consolidate their failing power.

Before marriage, Charles Darwin had confessed everything to her. That he was in the process of rewriting the history of life. That, according to his convictions, all living things descended from a common ancestor. And that species were not to be attributed to God's endless creativity, but were the product of a blind, mechanical process that altered them over the course of millions of years. This alone was pure heresy. Darwin even nursed doubts about the very survival of human beings.

And this man, who had gone around the world once, and was going to marry Emma Wedgwood, did not believe a single word of the biblical story of creation.

FUDU wrote:Erie and J, what is it exactly that makes Hawking's opinion on this more relevant than anybody else's?

Well, the dude has pretty much devoted his life to studying the origin of the universe and probably knows more about the subject than just about anyone else in the history of the world. That doesn't mean there aren't other smart people with valid opinions, even dissenting opinions. It doesn't mean that he's all knowing.

You might want to read the last line of the last page of "On the Origin of Species". It's first person.

"life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.

That is one of several references to a creator in the book.

Scientific American is a popular science publication, but their articles are based on published research, it's a solid source. They make science accessible for laypeople. That article is written based on the letters and journals of Darwin and his wife.

You misquoted On the Origin, and you took it out of context.

These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Clearly this statement shows Darwin's conviction to natural laws governing population dynamics and states that all life forms originated from one or few. Clearly. If you want to argue over the term "breathed", then I have no recourse, as you are unable to grasp the concept and mechanisms of natural selection and descent with modification.

Yes the term Creator is used in On the Origin, but I assure you Darwin was not a creationist. As you would say, read the book.

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled.

Again, the term Creator is used, but not as proof of god but as an acknowledgement that the laws (physics/ genetics) the govern matter were poorly defined, and have since been describe more accurately.

Clearly Darwin's view of "all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few" flies in the face of "created in God's image".

FUDU wrote:Erie and J, what is it exactly that makes Hawking's opinion on this more relevant than anybody else's?

In terms of describing the mechanisms the govern the universe, he's as good as it gets. Obviously I haven't read his new book, but it sounds like he is offering a description, based in facts, on how life could have arisen independent of a supreme being. I would say its less opinion, and more based on observable phenomenon.

He's probably not trying to disprove god, just showing how things work based on math.

Erie Warrior wrote:Scientific American is a popular science publication, but their articles are based on published research, it's a solid source. They make science accessible for laypeople. That article is written based on the letters and journals of Darwin and his wife.

And they've never been wrong before. Blah blah blah. While science itself is always finding new things, some proving what we "knew" before was wrong.

I work in a science. And it changes every day. When I started in EMS 20some years ago, we gave anyone who was unconscious sugar in their IV. Then we figured out, if they're having a stroke, we just made it a lot worse. So now we have sugar checkers. The most basic part of medicine, CPR, changes every three freaking years.

You could read 40 hours a week and still not keep up with the latest medical discoveries. And all the shit we "knew" before that is now wrong.

You misquoted On the Origin, and you took it out of context.

No it's pretty clear what he meant. It's pretty hard to read anything else into "having been originally breathed by the Creator"

There's not too many things that can mean. I've tried, but I just can't get "there is no Creator" in any of that.

Clearly this statement shows Darwin's conviction to natural laws governing population dynamics and states that all life forms originated from one or few. Clearly. If you want to argue over the term "breathed", then I have no recourse, as you are unable to grasp the concept and mechanisms of natural selection and descent with modification.

If you want to view a creator as a being who personally creates every planet, every star, every living thing and gives it life, then yeah, you could say evolution is a polar opposite to religion. Funny thing is, only a few Christians don't believe in some form of evolution. Consider a minute, a being putting the entire cycle to motion where everything would form through the being's laws. What if the big bang were the creator setting evolution into motion?

Yes the term Creator is used in On the Origin, but I assure you Darwin was not a creationist. As you would say, read the book.

"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

"When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

Clearly Darwin's view of "all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few" flies in the face of "created in God's image".

Again, you're looking at a creator who would build everything and everyone by hand. A cosmic Gepetto. Not taking into account that a human would eventually evolve in the creator's image after X number of cycles. The moon would eventually be created in the Earth's likeness. The Sun was eventually created in Alpha Cetauri's likeness.

The Catholic church grasped this with its 1950 papal encyclical. They grasp the fact that their Creator set all of these laws and evolutions in motion that Darwin and other scientists studied. "the laws impressed on matter by the Creator"

He may have waivered in his belief in a Creator after listening to others. You can listen to the scientists on WTAM after midnight and believe all kinds of shit.

But I see in those words a concept of a Creator starting evolution in motion.

Last edited by Spin on Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

If this were true, there should be all kinds of shit on Jupiter. It has more gravity than any other planet.

FUDU wrote:Erie and J, what is it exactly that makes Hawking's opinion on this more relevant than anybody else's?

Well, the dude has pretty much devoted his life to studying the origin of the universe and probably knows more about the subject than just about anyone else in the history of the world. That doesn't mean there aren't other smart people with valid opinions, even dissenting opinions. It doesn't mean that he's all knowing.

But, he probably knows more about it than say...this guy:

Sorry for being simple minded.

There have been people of equal or greater intelligence than Hawking that have believed in God, Einstein for one, so that is why I ask why Hawking's opinion on this is any more relevant than anyone else's. See the thing is, that it is an opinion gets overlooked (almost ignored) b/c the POV comes from a guy like Hawking who has a predetermined reputation. So people tend to want to look at his POV as a fact instead of an opinion. Be assured I'm not knocking Hawking's intelligence, I am simply suggesting let's take Hawking's opinion(s) in context regarding and relevant to his area of expertise.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:There have been people of equal or greater intelligence than Hawking that have believed in God, Einstein for one, so that is why I ask why Hawking's opinion on this is any more relevant than anyone else's. See the thing is, that it is an opinion gets overlooked (almost ignored) b/c the POV comes from a guy like Hawking who has a predetermined reputation. So people tend to want to look at his POV as a fact instead of an opinion. Be assured I'm not knocking Hawking's intelligence, I am simply suggesting let's take Hawking's opinion(s) in context regarding and relevant to his area of expertise.

I absolutely understand that other very intelligent people believe in God. I tried to take care to get that across in my post:

"That doesn't mean there aren't other smart people with valid opinions, even dissenting opinions"

You wrote:

Unfortunately simple minded folks will assume his reputation as a "genius" plays a relevant role in Hawking speaking on such matters.

It is my contention that him being a genius and studying the matter extensively DOES make his opinion on the matter more relevant than the vast majority of people. Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but to imply that anyone who would value and consider Hawking's views on the subject as "simple minded" is ridiculous.

Of course I'll listen to and consider Stephen Hawking's thoughts on the origin of the universe as it pertains to God. Why the hell wouldn't I?

So you throw Einstein into it? Seriously? The man popularly considered to be the smartest man to ever walk the face of the Earth?

OK. I'll give you that. Hawking's opinion is no more valid that Albert Einstein's opinion. That doesn't mean that Hawking's opinion is not more valid that ANYONE else's. It's more valid than most people's.

Now, if someone is using Hawking's theories as PROOF that God does not exist, I don't know what to say about them.

You know what's funny about this? No one has the energy or desire to do the God Debate again. We've done it what, a half dozen times? We all know each other's opinions on the subject and we know none of those opinions are going to be changed.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:You know what's funny about this? No one has the energy or desire to do the God Debate again. We've done it what, a half dozen times? We all know each other's opinions on the subject and we know none of those opinions are going to be changed.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:You know what's funny about this? No one has the energy or desire to do the God Debate again. We've done it what, a half dozen times? We all know each other's opinions on the subject and we know none of those opinions are going to be changed.

Substitute in any other topic in NHB and this works too.

I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime